You find some usable land and start farming the potatoes. Perhaps you will do so in cooperation with other farmers. Everyone will own the resulting potatoes in accordance with the work they've contributed to it. They will probably want to keep so many potatoes and trade the rest for things that they need and want.

You have the right to refuse to associate with someone as well as the right to defend yourself from thieves. You have no right to lord your surplus over anyone.

Isnt this contradictory?

No. When you sell a potato, you now own whatever you got in exchange for it and have no more ownership over that potato. When you lord a potato, you might take a portion of all the potatoes that anyone might ever grow from it, like how Monsanto operates. You might become that person's lord as long as they eat your potatoes.

No. When you sell a potato, you now own whatever you got in exchange for it and have no more ownership over that potato. When you lord a potato, you might take a portion of all the potatoes that anyone might ever grow from it, like how Monsanto operates. You might become that person's lord as long as they eat your potatoes.

I was laughing when I read that and I dont even know what it means. You can not keep introducing new terms, you are complicating the debate, not making things more understandable. You know what they say: if someone is using complicated words and mudding the debate it can be because of two reasons: 1) He/she has no idea what he/she is talking about, or 2) deception.

Try to explain things clearly. "Lording a potato" is not a clear or self-explanatory concept.

I think a lot is be pondered about "Authority", how about "Reliance". Some people are ready and willing to be reliant on others and succumb to their authority in exchange for something.

Are Employers exerting "Authority", or are Employee's being "Reliant". If someone choose to be reliant on me for their well being, and I accept that responsibility, do I have any say in the matter? If I don't, then I will never accept the responsibility of someone else being reliant on me.

For Example:

Employment: You came to me; I did not come to you. You want to work for me, so you can survive. So you are willing to accept my money but not my authority in telling you what, how, and when I want something done. Nah, I don't think I want to accept that responsibility, go look for someone else to be responsible for you. If you are willing and of your own free will want to accept my authority then come back and reapply for the job.

BTW: Sometimes and in certain positions, employers go out and seek employees. Then the Employee has the power. If you want me to work for you, this is what I want. I want a $5000 signing bonus, I want Stock Options, I want a contract, I want profit sharing, etc... If you as an employer do not want to give me this, then go find someone else.

All employment is an agreement between parties. The need for the type of work, will determine who actually has authority. Others are perfectly happy being reliant on others (employer, government, family, etc...)

If one can only choose to work for an employer, of course that person will have to rely and depend on one, whether or not either party believes it. As long as the necessity remains for workers to submit to employers, that will always be the case. Even when the job market appears to turn in the worker's favor, capitalists will never pay a higher wage unless they expect to continue to profit.

Try to explain things clearly. "Lording a potato" is not a clear or self-explanatory concept.

I did explain my use of the term. Although I should have more properly said "when you lord over someone with a potato...", I did convey the correct meaning of the word lord as a verb. I don't understand why you wouldn't trust me over my vocabulary. We have plenty of time to consult free dictionaries while debating on a web forum.

I did explain my use of the term. Although I should have more properly said "when you lord over someone with a potato...", I did convey the correct meaning of the word lord as a verb. I don't understand why you wouldn't trust me over my vocabulary. We have plenty of time to consult free dictionaries while debating on a web forum.

I did use the dictionary. It says to lord is to treat with arrogance. But I still dont understand what it means to "lord over someone with a potato"... You keep using subjective terms as if they were objective. How can I know if someone is "lording the potatos"? I could ask you what your feeling are about something, but that is not way to create a system. I dont understand your distinctions, they are not clear, they always use subjective terms, that basically express how you feel about something. It seems to me that the same fact could be moral and inmoral to you depending on the rethoric used.

Can you please explain to me in clear terms this:

Quote

Quote

You find some usable land and start farming the potatoes. Perhaps you will do so in cooperation with other farmers. Everyone will own the resulting potatoes in accordance with the work they've contributed to it. They will probably want to keep so many potatoes and trade the rest for things that they need and want.

You have the right to refuse to associate with someone as well as the right to defend yourself from thieves. You have no right to lord your surplus over anyone.

Isnt this contradictory?

Why someone selling a potato and obtaining a surplus is just trading and its moral, but someone else selling a potato and obtaining a surplus is "lording the potatos" and its inmoral?

First big problem, the best fertile land for growing potatoes is halfway up the hill on the sunny side, frost-free, gentle slopes and everybody wants to use it, but you seem to be saying nobody owns this land, as that would represent capital ... how do you decide in your commie paradise who gets to grow potatoes on the best land and those that get the crap low-production, high-risk land?

I didn't see that one. Merriam-Webster defines lording as acting like a lord, Cambridge defines it as behaving "as if you are better than someone and have the right to tell them what to do", and yourdictionary.com defines it as domineering.

Quote

But I still dont understand what it means to "lord over someone with a potato"... You keep using subjective terms as if they were objective. How can I know if someone is "lording the potatos"? I could ask you what your feeling are about something, but that is not way to create a system. I dont understand your distinctions, they are not clear, they always use subjective terms, that basically express how you feel about something. It seems to me that the same fact could be moral and inmoral to you depending on the rethoric used.

Can you please explain to me in clear terms this:

Quote

Quote

You find some usable land and start farming the potatoes. Perhaps you will do so in cooperation with other farmers. Everyone will own the resulting potatoes in accordance with the work they've contributed to it. They will probably want to keep so many potatoes and trade the rest for things that they need and want.

You have the right to refuse to associate with someone as well as the right to defend yourself from thieves. You have no right to lord your surplus over anyone.

Isnt this contradictory?

Why someone selling a potato and obtaining a surplus is just trading and its moral, but someone else selling a potato and obtaining a surplus is "lording the potatos" and its inmoral?

When you sell a potato, you now own whatever you got in exchange for it and have no more ownership over that potato. When you lord a potato, you might take a portion of all the potatoes that anyone might ever grow from it, like how Monsanto operates. You might become that person's lord as long as they eat your potatoes.

There is a difference. If you don't like the word lord, then think of rent, or loan with interest.

I think what is trying to be expressed is: To each his needs according to his wants.

Which makes absolutely no sense.

Nice potato, I want it, I must have it, I need it, How dare you want me to pay for it. Give it to me, you don't need it.

This whole argument gets summed up as: Charity with arrogance.

I don't like giving to arrogant people that expect things, I like giving to people that try and fail and try again without asking for anything.

So any surplus that I choose to give away will go to those people.

All I'm suggesting is that if you own some land, in the capitalist sense, you have have no inherent right to that which people might produce on it with their labor. You only have a right to that which you produce with your labor. Capitalism requires the use or threat of force to take the product of people's labor without exchanging something of equal value. I should also add that after that exchange, you do not have any right to that which someone produces using that which you produced.

First big problem, the best fertile land for growing potatoes is halfway up the hill on the sunny side, frost-free, gentle slopes and everybody wants to use it, but you seem to be saying nobody owns this land, as that would represent capital ... how do you decide in your commie paradise who gets to grow potatoes on the best land and those that get the crap low-production, high-risk land?

If you want to farm potatoes, you go to the best fertile land, halfway up a gently sloped hill on the sunny side, make sure there's no frost, and start farming. If that bit of land already has plenty of people working it, and the contribution of your labor will not help to increase the harvest, you find another spot or produce something else that you can trade for the potatoes.

If people don't like my terms of exchange when it comes to working on my potato farm (USD only for labor), they can work somewhere else or start their own potato farm. I am not forcing anybody to do anything. They can either utilize my services of employment or not.

If people don't like my terms of exchange when it comes to working on my potato farm (USD only for labor), they can work somewhere else and start their own potato farm. I am not forcing anybody to do anything. They can either utilize my services of employment or not.

So you give them a USD wage as long as they produce for you as much as you see fit. If the market should value that which your laborers produced as greater than what you paid them for for the time they spend producing it, they will experience a net loss and you a net gain. How do you have the power to enjoy such an arrangement?

If people don't like my terms of exchange when it comes to working on my potato farm (USD only for labor), they can work somewhere else and start their own potato farm. I am not forcing anybody to do anything. They can either utilize my services of employment or not.

So you give them a USD wage as long as they produce for you as much as you see fit. If the market should value that which your laborers produced as greater than what you paid them for for the time they spend producing it, they will experience a net loss and you a net gain. How do you have the power to enjoy such an arrangement?

I have power over the potato farm. I am not controlling my workers, they are choosing to use my facilities to convert their work into currency. They can leave at any time. There is no coercion. If they don't like my rate, they can leave. Yes, my agreement states they cannot take the potatoes off the farm and sell them to somebody else but they consented to it. Besides, I spend a good amount of effort maintaining my land. I should be paid in exchange for the use of it. I only can determine that rate. It's my land.

I am not controlling my workers, they are choosing to use my facilities to convert their work into currency. They can leave at any time. There is no coercion. If they don't like my rate, they can leave.

And then get the same deal from another land owner. They have no real choice as a result of the coercion of you and the other land owners.

Quote

Yes, my agreement states they cannot take the potatoes off the farm and sell them to somebody else but they consented to it. Besides, I spend a good amount of effort maintaining my land. I should be paid in exchange for the use of it. I only can determine that rate. It's my land.

If they disagree with your rate why can they not maintain the land that you claim themselves?

I am not controlling my workers, they are choosing to use my facilities to convert their work into currency. They can leave at any time. There is no coercion. If they don't like my rate, they can leave.

And then get the same deal from another land owner. They have no real choice as a result of the coercion of you and the other land owners.

Yes, my agreement states they cannot take the potatoes off the farm and sell them to somebody else but they consented to it. Besides, I spend a good amount of effort maintaining my land. I should be paid in exchange for the use of it. I only can determine that rate. It's my land.

If they disagree with your rate why can they not maintain the land that you claim themselves?

Because it's my land and other workers will probably take their place.

All I'm suggesting is that if you own some land, in the capitalist sense, you have have no inherent right to that which people might produce on it with their labor. You only have a right to that which you produce with your labor. Capitalism requires the use or threat of force to take the product of people's labor without exchanging something of equal value. I should also add that after that exchange, you do not have any right to that which someone produces using that which you produced.

I think I see a point at which compromise can be attained.

Correct me if I am wrong:

A "rich guy" owns 200,000 acres of land, and a "poor guy" owns nothing, but sneaks onto the rich guys land and grows potatoes. You say the potatoes belong to the poor guy because he "labored" for them. If the rich guy "lords" over the poor guy he is wrong. I think you might have a point here somewhere but an acceptable compromise must be attained. The "rich guy" labored to acquire land, instead of "potatoes", so he should also bare the "fruits" of his labor and not let the "poor guy" steal it from him. Just like the rich guy shouldn't steal the "poor guys" potatoes.

How can someone compromise this? Well the poor guy should give "something" to the rich guy where both can benefit from each of their "laboring". Technically this is "squatting".

Which in the United States is taken into account:

In time, squatters can actually earn ownership of the dwelling. There's a legal precedent in most of the United States called adverse possession. This doctrine says that if a squatter lives "openly, continuously and hostilely" in a home for a prescribed number of years, he or she can become the owner. This applies to property that's vacant and where property taxes aren't being paid. The three criteria that must be met are making no attempts to hide the inhabitation (open), living in the dwelling continuously and without permission (hostile). If the squatter pays property taxes on the home, when the time limit is reached, he or she is considered the owner.

So if the "Rich Guy", never notices or doesn't do anything, the "poor guy" can become the owner. This will let the land that "isn't really being used to be re-proportioned."

But if the "Rich Guy" takes notice because he is in some fashion "using it". There must be a solution. The sympathetic solution, would be to let the "poor guy" continue but pay the rich guy a portion of proceeds for his labors. A win/win solution.

But if the "Rich Guy" wants to stop the "poor guy" and make him leave. You say he shouldn't be able to do it. But that will allow the poor guy to become the rich guy and the rich guy to become the poor guy. All because one put his labors into potatoes instead of land.

I say the rich guy should be able to make the poor guy leave BUT the rich guy shouldn't get the potatoes or any profit from them. That seems fair.

Please consider this as pointed out below by a poster: If there is not "Land Ownership" being paid for by the fruits of ones labors, there will be great fighting over use of the land. All the Potato growers will fight for the best place to grow potatoes, mine, drill, etc...

If you own to much land to properly oversee then "Squatters" will occur and ownership transferred. The U.S. and Australia have law sympathetic to squatters, because of extreme land grabs where people claimed hundreds of thousands of acres for themselves. So our two countries have as a foundation and rarely used principle of "Use it or loose it". People still do this and cases come up almost every year, but as soon as you are declared the new owner, you must pay the taxes. Death and Taxes, you know.

You find some usable land and start farming the potatoes. Perhaps you will do so in cooperation with other farmers. Everyone will own the resulting potatoes in accordance with the work they've contributed to it. They will probably want to keep so many potatoes and trade the rest for things that they need and want.

You have the right to refuse to associate with someone as well as the right to defend yourself from thieves. You have no right to lord your surplus over anyone.

Isnt this contradictory?

Why someone selling a potato and obtaining a surplus is just trading and its moral, but someone else selling a potato and obtaining a surplus is "lording the potatos" and its inmoral?

When you sell a potato, you now own whatever you got in exchange for it and have no more ownership over that potato. When you lord a potato, you might take a portion of all the potatoes that anyone might ever grow from it, like how Monsanto operates. You might become that person's lord as long as they eat your potatoes.

There is a difference. If you don't like the word lord, then think of rent, or loan with interest.[/quote]

You have not answered. Stop hiding behind rethoric and answer clearly.

In the example above, the original, how can I know if someone is just obtaining surplus in a moral way (according to you) or someone is obtaining a surplus inomorally (according to you)?